Gundeti Vani, vs The State Of Telangana,

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                 AND
     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI



 Writ Petition Nos.14906, 14908, 14913, 14916, 14920,
            14930 of 2015 and 11251 of 2016

COMMON ORDER:     (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)


     Regard being had to the controversy involved in the

aforesaid cases, they were heard together and are being

decided by a common order.

     The facts of W.P.No.14913 of 2015 are reproduced

as under:-

     The present writ petition is arising out of an order

dated 12.07.2014 by which the authorisation granted in

favour of the petitioner in respect of a fair price shop has

been cancelled.

     The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner was

issued authorisation under the Andhra Pradesh State

Public   Distribution      System         (Control)        Order,       2008

(hereinafter referred to as, the Control Order), on

14.05.2013 to run a fair price shop i.e., fair price shop

No.174. The petitioner thereafter contested the election

under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and

was elected as MPTC-I in the elections of the year 2014.

The undisputed facts further reveal that the allotment of

fair price shop to the petitioner was as per the Control
                                  2




Order and Clause 17(C) of the Control Order reads as

under:-

             "17(C) Taking part in Political Activities:- No
     Fair Price shop dealer/Nominated Retailer/Hawker
     shall take part in any political activity directly or
     indirectly in any General/Municipal/Panchayath Raj
     elections, hampering the public distribution system
     and the authorisation granted to him/her under the
     Order shall be cancelled, if he/she is found involved in
     such political activity/canvassing."


     The aforesaid Control Order makes it very clear that

a person, who has been allotted a fair price shop, will not

take part in political activity directly or indirectly or in

any municipal elections or panchayat raj elections. The

petitioner    with   open    eyes    accepted    the    aforesaid

condition and applied for allotment of shop and she was

allotted fair price shop No.174 at Teegalaguttapally

Village, Karimnagar. After she was elected as MPTC, a

show cause notice was issued on 06.06.2014 calling

upon her to explain the reasons as to why her

authorisation in respect of the fair price shop be not

cancelled. Thereafter, she submitted a detailed reply to

the show cause notice.         The competent authority has

finally passed an order on 12.07.2014 cancelling the

authorisation of fair price shop under the Control Order,

against which an appeal was preferred in the matter.
                                   3




The appeal was also dismissed on 29.04.2015.            The

petitioner has now preferred the writ petition taking

shelter of a judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Somnath Rath v. Bikram K. Arukh

and others1.           She has also placed reliance upon the

judgment delivered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh

in W.P.No.14189 of 2006 and batch and her contention is

that no such condition can come in the way of the

petitioner in the matter of allotment of fair price shop

keeping in view the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court. Reliance has also been placed upon the

executive instructions issued by the State Election

Commission.

         There is no quarrel in respect of contesting the

election under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act.

The issue before this Court is whether the petitioner can

continue with the authorisation/allotment of fair price

shop even after she has contested the election and has

been declared successful in the election.        The Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Somnath Rath (supra) has

dealt with an altogether different controversy. It was a

case where a dealer under the public distribution system

was contesting in the election of Member of Legislative


1
    AIR 1999 SC 3417
                              4




Constituency and his candidature was rejected keeping

in view Sections 9A and 100(1)(c) of the Representation of

the People Act, 1951.

     In the aforesaid case, it has certainly been held that

public distribution dealership is not a disqualification for

being chosen as a Member of Legislative Assembly.

However, the fact remains that in the present case, at the

time of allotment of shop, there was a categorical

condition under the Control Order i.e., Clause 17(C),

which provided a bar in taking part in the political

activities. The petitioner, with open eyes, has accepted

the aforesaid condition and now after contesting the

elections and after being declared successful, wants to

continue with the fair price shop.

     In the considered opinion of this Court, the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was delivered in

an altogether different context. It is nobody's case that

the petitioner was stopped from contesting the election or

her nomination papers were rejected and therefore, as

there was a condition while allotting the fair price shop to

the petitioner, the question of interference by this Court

in respect of the show cause notice and the subsequent

orders passed by the respondents does not arise.

The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ ______________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 03.01.2022 vs